case_search_captcha

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

With no annotations, the description discloses key behavior: it returns a CAPTCHA image and creates a session_id. It also notes that automatic recognition is not feasible. However, it does not mention if the operation is read-only or any side effects beyond session creation.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is well-structured with a step label, clear sections for arguments and returns. A bit verbose with Korean but front-loads the purpose efficiently. Minor redundancy in repeating parameter names could be condensed.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

Given no output schema, the description adequately explains the return object (session_id, captcha_image_path). It covers the tool's role in the workflow and parameter requirements. Missing error cases or prerequisites, but overall sufficient for a tool with three required params.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema coverage is 0%, so the description must provide meaning. It does so with examples ('여수시법원', '25자10010'), constraints (exact match for court, required for party_name in ssgo), and explanations (case_no auto-parses case type). This adds critical value beyond the bare schema.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description clearly states the tool's specific role: step 1 of a case search, returning a CAPTCHA image. It explicitly distinguishes from the sibling tool 'case_search_submit' which handles submission.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description explains the sequential dependency with 'case_search_submit' and warns that CAPTCHA cannot be auto-recognized, guiding the user to read the image. It does not explicitly state when not to use, but the context implies it's only for initializing a search.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.